Monday, April 17, 2017

Francis contra the New Testament

“In the resurrection, Christ rolled back the stone of the tomb,
but he wants also to break down all the walls that keep us locked in
our sterile pessimism, in our carefully constructed ivory towers that
isolate us from life, in our compulsive need for security and in
boundless ambition that can make us compromise the dignity of others.”

“And in the end of the sabbath, when it began to dawn towards the first
day of the week, came Mary Magdalene, and the other Mary to see the
sepulchre. And behold there was a great earthquake. For an Angel of the
Lord descended from heaven: and coming, rolled back the stone, and sat
upon it. And his countenance was as lightning, and his raiment as
snow.”

Notes for Ver. 2. Behold ... an angel. The angel did not remove the stone to afford a passage to Christ when he arose; for Christ most certainly arose before the angel appeared; but he removed the stone to prepare the way for the women, and to shew the soldiers that Christ was arisen. He sat on the stone, that the women might know he had removed it; and, in the second place, that they might not be terrified at the appearance of the soldiers; for he exhorted them not to fear, but to come and see; and lastly, to prevent the soldiers from putting in another body, had they been so disposed. The holy women seem not to have known that there were guards placed near the sepulchre; otherwise they would not have been so solicitous who should roll away the stone for them, as how they should deceive the guards and break the seal. (Tirinus) --- For an angel of the Lord. This angel, who came to testify Christ's resurrection, removed the great stone; but Christ was risen before, who according to all the fathers, says Estius, rose, the sepulchre being yet shut.[2] --- St. Matthew and St. Mark name but one angel; St. Luke and St. John name two. It may be answered, that the women saw one at one time, and two at another: one upon the stone, out of the monument; (which also frightened the guards) afterwards this angel disappeared, and the women coming near, and looking into the vault, saw two angels, when he that was on the right side said, why seek you him that is living, among the dead? --- Another difference to be observed, is, that Sts. Matthew, Mark and John tell us, that the angel, or angels, sat; and St. Luke, that they stood: they might sit at one time, and stand at another. Besides that in the style of the Scriptures, standing, or sitting, many times imply no more than that they were present there. --- In the third place, we take notice that Mary Magdalene seems to have come running to St. Peter, and St. John, as soon as she saw the stone removed, with these words, They have taken away the Lord ... and we know not where they have laid him: John xx. 2, we do not there read that she said any thing of the angels. Or perhaps St. Peter and St. John ran away before they heard all that Magdalene had to say. In all these there is no contradiction; and the difficulties rise only from this, that each evangelist does not relate all the circumstances. (Witham)

2 comments:

At least, a Pope should know the important details in the Gospel. Even if he is ignorant of Church doctrine, and further refuses to listen to the people whose job it is to advise a Pope on doctrine, at least he should not be ignorant - and incorrect - concerning well-known details related in the Gospels. Even children know the story of the Resurrection and the rolling away of the stone better than the Pope knows it.

The Resurrection is the basis of Christianity. As I Corinthians 15:14 states, "If Christ has not been raised, then our preaching is in vain and your faith is in vain." And 15:20: "But in fact Christ has been raised from the dead, the first fruits of those who have fallen asleep." Jorge should have concentrated on this, the very origin of Christianity; and he should have gotten the details of the story right.